Virent: Biomass to "Biogasoline"

Shell and Virent Energy Systems, Inc., (Virent™) have announced a joint research and development effort to convert plant sugars directly into gasoline and gasoline blend components, via the BioForming™ process, rather than producing ethanol. The process is a simple reactor system operating at relatively low temperatures and pressures and once it is functioning, no additional energy inputs are required. The resulting "biogasoline" could potentially eliminate the need for specialized infrastructure, new engine designs and blending equipment.

The production of gasoline via BioForming™ is a new pathway for the production of liquid fuels and chemicals from biiomass rather than from fossil fuels. Virent has received significant commercial interest and entered into key strategic industrial collaborations, including with Shell for the development of liquid fuels, which will speed the technology’s time to market and enable broad commercial penetration

Virents process is a technology that economically transforms the sugars from biomass into universally usable fuel. The sugars can be sourced from non-food sources like corn stover, switch grass, wheat straw and sugarcane pulp, in addition to conventional biofuel feedstock like wheat, corn and sugarcane. It produces gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels with with twice the net energy yield per acre as traditional ethanol processes and with a small CO2 footprint. Gasoline made via the BioForming™ process will enjoy a 20% to 30% per BTU cost advantage over ethanol.

The resultant biofuels have the same properties as their petroleum based counterparts.  They have the same energy content (for example, gasoline has 52 percent more energy per gallon than ethanol). The fuels produced through this process are fully compatible with existing engines, pipelines and fuel pumps. Virent’s products are universally usable, requiring no new infrastructure investment. They are compatible with existing engines, pipelines, and fuel pumps.

“Virent has proven that sugars can be converted into the same hydrocarbon mixtures of today’s gasoline blends. Our products match petroleum gasoline in functionality and performance. Virent’s unique catalytic process uses a variety of biomass-derived feedstocks to generate biogasoline at competitive costs. Our results to date fully justify accelerating commercialization of this technology.

-- Dr. Randy Cortright, Virent CTO, Co-Founder and Executive Vice President

Although the companies released few details on the costs of producing the fuel or when it may be available to consumers, chron.com, the Houston Chronicle web site, quoted Graeme Sweeney, head of Shells biofuels as saying:

"the companies next step would be two years of further testing followed by the possible construction of a 'demonstration conversion plant' — about one quarter of the size of a full scale commercial plant."

"We believe this technology has the potential to be cost competitive. Otherwise we wouldn't be taking this route."

The company claim that because the process uses catalysts, not bugs, it avoids dependence on fragile creatures and biology, resulting in a faster, more robust process that is completely in line with mainstream catalytic petroleum processing. Catalysts have been proven to be the most effective way to produce fuels and petrochemicals and have greater success utilizing cellulosic biomass than fermentation methods. Traditionally, sugars have been fermented into ethanol and distilled. Virents new ‘biogasoline’ molecules have higher energy content than ethanol (or butanol) and deliver better fuel efficiency. They can be blended seamlessly to make conventional gasoline or combined with gasoline containing ethanol. The system’s scalability enables the economical matching of production with available feedstock supplies.

Virent has demonstrated viable yields of biogasoline from glycerol, sorbitol, glucose, corn syrup, and sucrose feedstocks. The current development focus is developing production capabilities for biogasoline, sugar-based biodiesel, hydrogen, and propylene glycol.

Virent, Madison, WI, was founded in 2002 by Dr. Randy Cortright and Dr. Jim Dumesic to commercialize Aqueous Phase Reforming (APR) an innovative technology the two invented and patented while at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Although early research focused on generating hydrogen from sugar, as originally published in the journal Nature in 2002, the technology has since further evolved into the BioForming™ process, which enables the production of renewable liquid fuels, fuel gases, and other chemicals.

Virent has 68 employees located in a state-of-the-art catalytic biorefining development facility in Madison. The APR technology is exclusively licensed from the Wisconsin Alumni Foundation, the patent-licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. .

In 2005, Virent contracted with MG&E, a local Wisconsin utility, to build an integrated BioForming reactor and hydrogen/natural gas fueled generator for electricity production. The success of this system, which began operating in December 2005 and can deliver up to 10 kW of power, demonstrated the viability of the process. This sparked the interest of companies such as Cargill and Honda and ultimately led each to invest in the company in 2006.

In May 2007 Shell and Virent announced a five-year joint development agreement to develop further and commercialize Virent's BioForming™ technology platform for hydrogen production. The companies have so far collaborated for one year on the research. The technology has advanced rapidly, exceeding milestones for yield, product composition, and cost. Future efforts will focus on further improving the technology and scaling it up for larger volume commercial production.

In September 2007 – the company announced that it has closed a $21 million second round of venture financing, led by Stark Investments and Venture Investors LLC.  Cargill Ventures, the Series A Lead Investor, and Advantage Capital Partners, continued their strong support with full participation in the round. With this new investment, Virent has received grants and venture funding totaling nearly $40 million since its founding in 2002.

In October 2007 Virent received a $2 million Advanced Technology Program (ATP) grant from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop effective and economical methods to break down non‐food cellulosic biomass The grant specifically funds the development of a catalytic based process that combines carbohydrate hydrolysis with depolymerization to effectively break down cellulosic biomass into sugars and other chemical intermediates that can then be easily converted into biofuels. Over its history, Virent has been awarded over $11 million in federal and state grants.

Previous posts in TEB reported that Dumesic and his research team have developed a two-stage process for turning biomass-derived sugar, fructose, into 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF), a liquid transportation fuel with 40 percent greater energy density than ethanol, similar to that of gasoline. A few more details are given on this process which may give hints as to how the "biogasoline" process works.

If this process can be economically developed, we will have a biofuel that when combined with plug-in hybrids and the fuel use eliminated by electric vehicles, could  supplement or someday replace our gasoline, diesel and perhaps jet fuel requirements and give us independence from geopolitical unstable countries. If through adoption of these biofuels worldwide demand for liquid fuels could be reduced, the prices for these fuels could possibly be reduced or at least stabalized.

Comments

[fjh]

Sounds too good to be true?

Anyone from Madison to verify this exciting discovery?

[Andre Angelantoni]

It is too good to be true.

This will add even more pressure to our food supply.

It's simply not the case that "marginal" land is used for food-to-fuel production. It's far more profitable for a farmer to take arable land that is currently producing food and grow whatever is required as an input to these sorts of processes.

See Fermenting the Food Supply. As Lester Brown points out, we are watching the unfolding of mass worldwide starvation as we continue along this path.

This company had better not set up any plants anywhere near the world's poor without an enormous amount of security.

[Cyril R.]

The fundamental limitation to this approach is that it uses sugars as feedstock, in stead of being able to convert the majority of the chemical energy of the plants.

From a resource viewpoint, this is hardly any better than conventional (corn) ethanol. I don't know what else to say.

[Harvey D]

If the promised (2X) production per ha is realized, a limited (sustainable?) use of non-food feed-stocks may be justified to supply our PHEV and aircraft with essential liquid fuel.

OTOH, as production rise more and more feed-stocks will be required and farmers will quickly switch from food to biofuels-gasoline feed-stocks production. This will put added pressure on world food price.

A decade or two from now, there will be more mouths to feed. Can productive land produce enough to feed 7 to 10 billion people and half as many vehicles? Not unless vehicle fuel consumption is drastically reduced. Presently, many of our large gas guzzlers consume as much energy as 10 people. Fuel consumption will have to be reduced at least 10 times before agrofuels can supply the major part of the liquid fuel required.

The end solution may be more from fuel consumption reduction than alternate fuel sources. Up to one billion PHEV-100-Km or PHEV-200-Km and/or BEVs will be required to replace our gas guzzling ICE units to stop using most fossil fuel.

[Qwerty]

I agree with what has been commented earlier. This technology sounds exciting and I hope they can get it working. The fact that Shell is working with them adds a significant amount of clout in my opinion. However, regardless of how you convert plant material to fuel, the sugar or edible part is going to be easier to convert than the cellulose. Therefore this process will also strangle the food supply. This kind of development almost temps me to become a farmer. Farmers are going to do well in the coming decades.

[Cyril R.]

This doesn't sound exciting at all - it's less efficient than conventional ethanol. The fact that it's gasoline is a very marginal advantage over ethanol, and certainly doesn't outweigh the disadvantage that it's still just sugar based technology.

I agree, if the balance is heavily shifted towards electrified transport, then advanced biofuels (but not sugar based ones) could fill in the remaining demand.

If you can grow crops with decent sugar yields on marginal land, then a decent amount of food can also logically be grown there. Hopefully, the demographers are correct in their prediction that total global population will stabilize after a few billion more people.

[Bob Wallace]

"Farmers are going to do well in the coming decades."

If you farm where there is adequate water.

I wouldn't suggest that you start your farm where you would be dependent on glacier runoff or over one of our rapidly dropping aquifers.

Shifting from petroleum to agricultural biofuels might be one of the worst ideas man has ever had.

We're probably a lot better off pursuing algae oil and electricity for our transportation needs.

[George Keselman]

I think Virent several years behind technology THE RIVERA PROCESS(USSE.PK U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp.,SSTP.PK Sustainable Power Corp).THE RIVERA PROCESS catalytically activated chemical hydrolysis system, operating in the reactor vacuum chamber with temperatures under 800 degrees. With chemical hydrolysis you split the water molecules blending the hydrogen with the oil molecules, leaving free oxygen in the crude.The Biocrude produced in the Reactor by the "Rivera Process" has been named
Vertroleum™. Sustainable Power Corp. will produce, sell, and refine Vertroleum and Vetrochemical products.

Vertrochemical Products

* Biogasoline * Marine Fuel
* Biokerosene * Power Plant Fuel
* Biojetfuel * Bunker Fuel
* Green 2cycle oil * Biodiesel (not from transferification )
* Bio Motor Oils * Form Release
* Bio Solvents * Industrial Cleaners
* Bio Synthetics * Bio Plastics
more to come!

October 04, 2007 | Press Release

Sustainable Power Corp. Commences Preliminary Discussions on Commercialization of Biogasoline

Topics Include Potential Financing Structures for Plants and Equipment, Geographic Plant Locations, and Sale Contracts for Sustainable Power Corp's Product Lines

NATCHEZ, MS -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 10/04/07 -- Sustainable Power Corp. (PINKSHEETS: SSTP), an international green energy service provider focused on environmentally safe power generation, today announced that it is engaged in preliminary discussions with undisclosed parties focused on the commercialization of its revolutionary biogasoline product (referred to by SSTP as "BG100"). In addition to BG100, preliminary discussions are on-going regarding the Company's other breakthrough "green" products developed and proven to be direct replacements for conventional petroleum products.

AmSpec Services, LLC (www.amspecllc.com) has previously stated that they have witnessed SSTP's production of liquid oil, gas and carbon fertilizer from soybeans in their Natchez, MS facility. AmSpec secured representative samples of these products for its own testing in its Houston laboratory. While maintaining a full chain of custody of the products, AmSpec tested our "biogasoline" (BG100), marine fuel, and a replacement for gasoline-E85 flex fuel from SSTP's oil. It is these results that have led SSTP to feel confident in making the statement that they do in fact have "green" replacements for many conventional petroleum-based products currently in use today.

Discussions to date have been comprehensive, entailing potential financing structures for the plants and equipment, geographic plant locations, and the ultimate sale contracts for Sustainable Power Corp's product lines. While the discussions should be considered preliminary, initial feedback is encouraging and talks remain ongoing.

[Shawn Spiller]

Uh, yeah, too good to be true sounds about right... as gas prices are starting to hit 4 bucks/gal where I live, it almost seems a luxury to drive anymore. I was curious if these 'new' technologie(s) could be used in combination with algae oil, and other forms of alternative plant matters. I was reading a thing on yahoo news I believe, where some dude in New Mexico was growing 'pond scum' in hanging plastic bags... producing upto 100,000 gal/s per acre. which he claimed 10% of new mexico could power the whole US. Could this technology be the answer if combined with whoever was doing all that?

I'd be curious to know, my email is dreamingstargazer@hotmail.com as I don't get on blog post's much. I was just curious about new technologies, and was browsing news. I would really like an answer, if anyone has the time to email me one.

Thanks,

Shawn

[Danzig]

George Keselman,
U.S. Sustainable Energy is one of the great ongoing scams of our time. Anyone who researches the company's history of press releases and stock manipulations will quickly run for cover. Please don't bring that puffery to the Energy Blog.

[Richard]

I notice a lot of the comments here are about the strain biofuels could place upon our food supply. There's an easy answer to this, which would also have the effect of kerbing the growing energy demand: For governments worldwide to wake up to the phenomenon that growth is not infinite. If the planet's population continues to grow, does the size of the planet? No. There comes a point at which one planet cannot sustain all the people who live on it.

I'm not saying we are there yet, not even close. But if the world continues the way it is, we will have this problem at some point in the future. If we all stop becoming obsessed with growth, then we will be able to draw a line in the sand and say "this is how many people there are in this world, this is how much land we need to be able to feed them all, this is how much land is available for biofuels etc".

The trouble with this theory, of course, is it assumes that the world's nations are actually capable of thinking beyond their own shores/borders. At the moment, growth is THE way to get ahead of the rest of the pack, but it's this inherent model that needs to go.

[ike]

The conversion of biomass (whether sugar, starch, vegetable oil, cellulose, or lignin) to hydrocarbon fuels has been around for a long time. Making charcoal from wood is one simple example.

For a good review of the two processes used (gasification and pyrolysis), see
http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/proj_thermochemical_conversion.html

The basic mechanism of gasification is thermal cracking to produce light molecules, which can then be rearranged into different lengths. In the case of pyrolysis of sugars and biomass, the net result is that oxygen is removed and carbon and hydrogen are left behind: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Cracking

Depending on how you do it, the pyrolysis process produces more or less charcoal or coke (biomass is a far cleaner carbon source than coal!), along with hydrocarbon liquid and gas fractions. The charcoal makes an excellent agricultural amendment for poor soils, and actually is itself an efficient form of carbon burial. Do that with corn stalks, instead of corn kernels, and there is no issue with food production:

http://www.biochar-international.org/images/NZSR64_1_Winsley.pdf

The quality of the bio-oil and the necessary infrastructure are also issues. In many cases, the best use of available biomass might just be to burn it directly in pressed pellet form in large electricity plants.

[Al Fin]

Thanks for a constructive comment, ike, one of the few on this thread. Here is your link in clickable form: http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/proj_thermochemical_conversion.html

Biomass Magazine is another excellent resource.

The amount of conscious and subconscious pessimism pervading the modern "environmentalist" outlook is appalling. Too many of these comments reflect this "can't do" "defeatist" toxic subconscious mentality. Why do some of these folks even get out of bed in the morning?

[Cyril R.]

Al Fin, it's not that biofuels in general are a bad idea. Sugar based biofuels are a bad idea. More 'advanced' types (a bit of a misnomer as some of the technologies are relatively simple) are promising, but even they should be used in the right context.

It's not a question between electric or biofuels, it's about putting them together in such a way that their strenghts (potentials) are leveraged while their weaknesses (limitations) are reduced.

[Bob Wallace]

Al, what you see when you look at the current environmental outlook and what I see are drastically different.

What I see coming from environmentalists is first a realization that we have dug ourselves, the humans, into a deep hole and the rest of our world is beginning to tumble in with us.

That's not pessimism but realism.

The next thing that I see from coming from environmentalists is lots of effort to make changes in order to reverse our course.

It's the environmentalists who are attempting to set aside some of our land in an attempt to preserve biological diversity, to find ways to change our sources and uses of energy in order to minimize the effects of global warming. It's the environmentalists who realize that we can't just take care of our house and little piece of land in our gated community and ignore the rest of the planet.

Sure, there are some who are pessimistic and see the world coming to an end, but I find them to be outliers and balanced by the extreme pessimism that one sees coming from "conservatives".

You might see environmentalists cautious about Shell and Virent's plan to turn sugar into fuel. And with good reason.

One gets much more sugar from sugar cane juice than from squeezed out fiber. Leave it to corporations who are viewing only their bottom line and massive amounts of sugar will be diverted from our food chain and sent to our car tanks.

I would agree that many environmentalists are pessimistic about greedy people doing the right thing when it doesn't benefit themselves.

[George Keselman]

Danzig, do not tell me what to bring and what not to here, please. Anyone who is doing research on this company today can see
that it is on the verge of production of biocrude (~24000 gal/24 hours).
For comparison:
"Virent's pilot plants are currently able to produce only a gallon of biogasoline a day; its engineers hope to demonstrate a commercial-size plant able to produce around 10,000 liters within the next few years."
Last few month following people joined BOD:
Jim Ford, Senior Vice President of AmSpec Services, LLC,Abd. Hamid Bin Ibrahim CEO of Borneo Oil and Gas Corporation,Julio Gonzalez-Gamarra Parlacen President.
Implementing of company's technology on different levels is now in these countries:
Dominican Rep.,Haiti, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.
It is not a puffery. My point is just to show that USSE/SSTP is far ahead of Virent. What is yours?

[Roger Brown]

Too many of these comments reflect this "can't do" "defeatist" toxic subconscious mentality.

I wish people would take a "can do" attitude towards the most important structural issue facing our economic system: our commitment to continuous growth. If we decommit from growth and make it our goal to produce what we really need with maximum efficiency, then our ability to leverage technology improvements, efficiency improvements etc. to produce a decent quality of life vastly increases.

Of course decommitting from growth means sharing economic output more fairly. Without the prospect growth the people at the bottom of the wealth hierarchy get really ornery. Once you mention this idea all you hear is a chorus of "Can't do. Can't do. Can't do. Can't do. Human nature won't allow it. History has proven that it is impossible. I can spend endless hours researching alternate energy technology on the WEB, but I cannot spend five minutes thinking about the social and economic reform required to eliminate our dependence on growth because I know in advance that it won't work."

The dichotomy between people who care about the environment and people who want to put food on the table is nonsense. In the long run a sustainable economy (i.e. one which will continue to put food on the table)is one which takes account of ecological constraints. Unless you tell me that you are committed to creating an economy which produces sustainable, fairly shared, community wealth, then your preaching about people's "can't do" attitudes is the pot calling the kettle black.

[fjh]

Brilliant...hanging bags of algae....poke a hole and water drains out,leaving the stuff...talk about harvesting with ease!

Maine has over 500 tons of Green waste in the region; New england biomass is increasing at a rate 3% over current use; which is declining as logging disappears and paper mills shut down.

The warming climate--until this year, is helping greatly.

I think, from my Maine perspective that the fear tactic about people starving because all the land is in ethanol crops is B.S.

I can't even count all the empty fields in the area that get cut so they won't turn into woodlands; Maine is covered in fallow farm land that could be put back into production with bio-mass crops.

Farmers in the mid-west are doing rather well, paying off debt, etc. about time.

Lot's of competition among various cellulosic processes and damn if GE doesn't start marketing a 'farm anaerobic digester designed to make electricity in a large appliance. no cost yet, but gotto http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html#jenb/details for the details....

[Don B.]

As it HAS BECOME perfectly clear. Ethanol from carbohydrate-sourced crops is not sustainable. Examples: 1) The amount of fresh water that is needed in the process....from irrigation thru distillation. 2) Directly affects food prices....ADM can/will out-bid Kelloggs for a bushel of grain (let's not forget Federal tax subsidies for blenders of ethanol/gasoline!) 3) Extremely low yields per acre when compared to algae-based fuels. 4) E-85 creates a much shorter lifespan for ICE engines VS straight gasoline. It seems that the ethanol "washes-down" the cylinder walls and reduces the lubricity of the engine oil (remember alcohol is a SOLVENT!)....I work for a US Auto manufacturer @ their R&D center and was told to expect to see only 100Kmiles (TOPS!) from running a constant E-85. The "Big 3" embraced E-85 because it bought them some breathing room on their CAFE requirements.....otherwise; they know it's a sham! 5) The continued shift in weather patterns due to Global Warming; where it is becoming more difficult to predict who's going to have a drought and who's getting flooded....this leads to instability in planning/forecasting fuel production goals to satisfy demand.....again, leading to supply disruption/price spikes.
AS OF THIS TIME; the only SUSTAINABLE/VIABLE plant-based feedstock that I can see making any sense is algae-based biofuels.

Don B.

[Don B.]

As it HAS BECOME perfectly clear. Ethanol from carbohydrate-sourced crops is not sustainable. Examples: 1) The amount of fresh water that is needed in the process....from irrigation thru distillation. 2) Directly affects food prices....ADM can/will out-bid Kelloggs for a bushel of grain (let's not forget Federal tax subsidies for blenders of ethanol/gasoline!) 3) Extremely low yields per acre when compared to algae-based fuels. 4) E-85 creates a much shorter lifespan for ICE engines VS straight gasoline. It seems that the ethanol "washes-down" the cylinder walls and reduces the lubricity of the engine oil (remember alcohol is a SOLVENT!)....I work for a US Auto manufacturer @ their R&D center and was told to expect to see only 100Kmiles (TOPS!) from running a constant E-85. The "Big 3" embraced E-85 because it bought them some breathing room on their CAFE requirements.....otherwise; they know it's a sham! 5) The continued shift in weather patterns due to Global Warming; where it is becoming more difficult to predict who's going to have a drought and who's getting flooded....this leads to instability in planning/forecasting fuel production goals to satisfy demand.....again, leading to supply disruption/price spikes.
AS OF THIS TIME; the only SUSTAINABLE/VIABLE plant-based feedstock that I can see making any sense is algae-based biofuels.

Don B.

[Paul F. Dietz]

The real fun will come when they come up with a competitive technology for converting wood to liquid fuels. Next step: mining the world's existing forests. If it's economical to burn down a rain forest for conversion to cropland, what happens when you can make an even bigger profit by liquefying the trees instead?

[Cyril R.]

Don't worry about it Paul. Most of the world's existing forests are in developing countries. They will be cut down anyway, as developing countries want to 'develop'.

We're seeing this already, with Indonesian forests being cut down for palm oil plantations and the Brazialian ones for soy and other crops.

Woops, there goes another chimpanzee!

[Cyril R.]

Don't worry about it Paul. Most of the world's existing forests are in developing countries. They will be cut down anyway, as developing countries want to 'develop'.

We're seeing this already, with Indonesian forests being cut down for palm oil plantations and the Brazialian ones for soy and other crops.

Woops, there goes another chimpanzee!

[Max]

Found an interesting site on fixed price gasoline. http://www.gasbankusa.com